(07-30-2022, 11:02 AM)HumanSanity Wrote: It seems this discussion has stalled out a bit, which is rather unfortunate

Yeah, I got a bit busy IRL. Sorry to leave you hanging. I do agree it is rather unfortunate

Overall, I'm not entirely sold, but I do appreciate that you've left room for compromise here.

Beyond the core issue of appointments vs. elections, there's a question of how far to go, so to speak. I know there have been some opinions voiced that the ability for the Prime Minister to flexibly define their appointments is central to how an appointed Cabinet structure would work. I can see the argument that one might make in favor of that system, but am curious if you would consider it a necessity to the operation of an appointed Cabinet (and if so, why?).

Another consideration — I hope this isn't much of a compromise from your vantage point, but I think it would help if PM candidates were required to publish their intended Cabinet nominations/portfolios during the election cycle. It would, at least, keep some of the experience of voting for elected officials with particular areas of responsibility.

Regarding the SPSF — other than who's doing the appointing, what is the functional difference between our existing system for approving appointments, and your proposed system for overturning appointments? Just that someone who the Assembly doesn't want to be come a General would get a few days on the job this way?

It sounds like a trivial semantic difference, but I think these semantic differences do matter when it comes to a debate like this. An appointed Cabinet system (even one with specific ministries established by law) already gives the Prime Minister a much more powerful 'bully pulpit,' especially within a Cabinet that serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Statutory power isn't the end-all-be-all; there are inherent social pressures with someone who is your 'boss' — who can replace you if they desire.

The impressions created by statutory powers is also important. Reading your proposal, the two biggest concerns that popped into my head are:

• Even if you disagree with arguments that an appointed Cabinet concentrates excessive power with the Prime Minister, the perception of how power is concentrated also matters. There's a point where an appointed Cabinet providing "a focus for political energy" turns into providing a focus for political sucking-up, because the law assigns so much power to the Prime Minister specifically.
  
• There's no clear pathway to learn the leadership skills future Prime Ministers will need. If I'm understanding correctly, in your proposal Ministers are effectively serving an administrative role of overseeing one area of Cabinet responsibility, while Prime Ministers are expected to make decisions on the military, World Assembly, proscriptions, and so forth. Not all of these areas of responsibility fall under Cabinet ministers more generally. I'll be the first to recognize that it can feel redundant for the Prime Minister to bring numerous issues to a Cabinet vote just for those issues to often be rubber-stamped, but without offering interested Cabinet members even the opportunity to chime in or see those processes at work, there are limited opportunities for them to experience and learn the decision-making we expect of a Prime Minister.